fireheadca writes "Metallica, once strongly opposed to file-sharing, has hinted at going 'free' in the style of NIN and Radiohead. Having heard success stories about releasing music online, Metallica has decided it wants a piece of the action. Radiohead, as a pioneer of online 'pay what you want' music, has shown the world it is possible to profit by releasing music online, but would not post those profits. NIN, on the other hand, has reported at least $1.6 million in revenue. In hindsight, many people remember Metallica as the band that helped shutdown Napster. I purchased the NIN album, after many years of free downloads of the NIN collection, to help support the band. Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?"
Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
No. They totally missed the point before, and it sounds like now they're just trying to latch on to an idea that helped others. The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus.
I couldn't agree more. Too little, too late, I say. A bit like how MS decided the Internet wasn't going to be anything major and focused on proprietary MSN which never really became a market leader. Metallica not only picked the wrong model, they behaved atrociously to their fans on top of it.
And besides, Metallica hasn't put out a decent album in the better part of 20 years. Why would anyone want to pay for their crap, or even listen to it for free?
I'm concerned that this will lead to an internet boycott.
The only thing that could have a major effect on this launch is a serious boycott based on Metallica's earlier views. Most/.ers are pissed and the issue is something that people learning about this album online will know about, likely the album will still do well... though it will be pirated more.
I hope this album is successful. I think Metallica is played out and their music is old fashioned and mediocre.
But I hope whatever stupid way they choose to distribute it succeeds, just so that other misguided artists who feel that piracy is the end of music will STFU.:)
You do realize that every single album Metallica has released in the last 20 years has peaked at #1 ?
More people drink Budweiser than Spaten. I suppose that means it's a better beer?
I bet N'Sync has hit #1, too.
Metallica jumped the shark around the era of the self-titled black album. There's little to no reason to listen to them now (Nostalgia, I guess.)
Of course, this is just personal preference. It's certainly OK for a band to grow and change. But let's face it, the majority of 'core Metallica fans dropped out at "Nothing Else Matters" and haven't looked back.
Personally, I think most Metallica was always boring, and I liked the self-title. But if I had been a "Kill 'em All" fan, I would have been mailing them bombs or something.
> but not liking a song you once liked, without somehow relating it to a negative experience, is weird
really? i see this as a completely normal thing. i liked 'twinkle twinkle little star' when i was 6 years old. not so much anymore. if i can change who i am, why wouldn't my musical tastes change too? shouldn't they reflect, in some way, who you are? the concept that you must always like songs you once liked unless you had a negative experience is, in my opinion, the wierd one.
Bjork is cooler than you know, first getting her start in the early Iceland punk scene and playing with the post-punk group KUKL, touring with Crass and Flux of Pink Indians before switching to a more ethereal sound later in her career. She's no Britney, and would have no real problems with a Grindcore remix of her material.
(I'm actually not really a fan of her work, but she's in the category of people I really respect even if I don't get into their work that much. Almost wish I liked it more than I do.)
successful doesn't mean good. Look at Microsoft. They've been stupidly successful up until recently, but did that mean they have a good product/have great programmers??
So, are you implying that... St. Anger was Metallica's Vista?:P
To err is human. If they've seen the error of their ways, then I would reconsider them. They would need to do more than say "I'm sorry" though... They'd need to actively work against the copyright regime they helped create. 1997 NET Act made copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense. That's a first and is due in no small part to Metallica. They helped create a whole new class of "criminal" and they have to atone for that mistake. If they only post their music, they can keep it... If they post the music, along with an open letter to Congress requesting the radical alteration and/or repeal of recent copyright legislation like the NET Act or the DMCA, then I would consider spending my money with them.
If they post the music, along with an open letter to Congress requesting the radical alteration and/or repeal of recent copyright legislation like the NET Act or the DMCA, then I would consider spending my money with them.
Open letters to Congress don't mean nearly as much as professional lobbying, I would much rather see a Metallica team up with other musicians (perhaps Radiohead and NIN) to form a "Fans are not Criminals" political action committee and have a PAC contribution option with every download.
Indeed. To follow others because of greed doesn't imply having seen the light.
However, Metallica will almost certainly fail in this, because they have alienated those who would go for this type of distribution model. Sorry, I'm not responsible for Lars' kitten starving, Lars is. You reap what you have sown.
No. They totally missed the point before, and it sounds like now they're just trying to latch on to an idea that helped others. The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus.
At the same time, if you're trying to push that viewpoint to the masses as the way music should be, would it not be pragmatic to support them?
Yes, they were dickheads before, but if they're really going to shift to this business model that's a fucking big name endorsing it.
Their "big name" is so tarnished that it would be more harm than boon if they were to hop on the bandwagon. Not to mention that their music has been on the decline since Master of Puppets. I think Alex Skolnick said it best about St. Anger:
"There is no unity or cohesiveness to the songs. Some of them are downright funny, as if 'Saturday Night Live' was doing a skit making fun of them. This album represents what they are now: a sloppy mess. And the heart of the matter is that this is not a good METALLICA album. I speak only as a fan. Sure, it's noisy and angry but something is seriously missing. It seems to represents a decline in the standards of this modern day and age, when we are bombarded with so much information we forget what true quality is."
The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit.
I take a more pragmatic view. If I liked Metallica's music, I would probably buy their album. My goal is to ruin the big record companies, and the best way to do this is make their biggest sellers jump ship. For that reason, I wish any big act success in going out on their own, no matter what their rationale or motivation.
Why do I want to ruin the big record companies? In my view, it is one of the only ways to bring sanity back to the copyright picture. As long as these guys are around to pump money into congress, we little folks don't stand a chance. I fear we might have to do the same to Hollywood if they don't wise up.
The record companies are hurting bad, and their role is already diminished. It won't be long before they can't afford congress anymore (with any luck). All we need are their most successful artists to abandon ship, and hopefully that is what we are seeing here.
Hollywood is indeed a tougher nut to crack - part of my fear about having to crack them. Still, if TV almost killed them in the 50s, then the internet could certainly do it 50 years later - especially as connection speeds increase. Napster took off when people were downloading songs over a 56k modem and it took about 5 minutes. To get a decent quality movie in the same time, it would take a connection speed of about 25 Mbps.
I have to disagree with you there. It is precisely because they want to make better profits that this "turn" should be endorsed and supported.
Metallica was acting as the RIAA's puppet, brainwashed into thinking this is how they should 'protect their own profits.' But now that they have seen that perhaps the RIAA has been protecting its own profits and the expense of the groups' earning potential, it is one less nail in the coffin of musical art.
Let's not forget that Metallica supported "the dark side" but instead use it as evidence of the real dark side's failing business model. If Metallica can turn, they can all turn. Before long, there may be several bands with names like "The artists formerly known as..."
If Metallica fails in trying to get free, it will serve as a sign that other artists and bands should not stray from the comfortable dark place they exist in now.
Its called 'selling out'. They sold out decades ago. Now that they realize they screwed up with the napster shut down assist, and participated in making the p2p market what it is today they want to capitalize on it as complete 2 faced hypocrites.
I still think that if the RIAA hadn't gone after napster, with the help of bands like metallica p2p would have never made it into the mainstream and become what we know it as today. They CREATED the problem the industry is having today due to their shortsighted holier then thou attitudes. They shouldn't be allowed to participate in it now.
said by someone who presumably has a day job that pays the bills. Why is it ok for some people to have high paid jobs in IT, or sales or law, and enjoy listening to music thats free, whereas the people who actually make the music are forbidden from earning the money generated by their work? is this some way you are dreaming up to 'punish' people whose talent happens to be making music rather than configuring routers? I don't see why people split society in two halves., the 'creative' types who are forced to work for free (or low wages) to entertain the rest of society, who apparently can happily enjoy all the fruits of capitalism and be rich as hell.
Take a look at the UKs sunday times rich list (1,000 richest people in the UK). hardly any of them are musicians, yet the internet mentality is to treat the musicians who make money as evil capitalist scum, but the guy who is a multi billionaire from making milk cartons gets buy with just a slap on the back and a thumbs up.
I'd buy metallicas album if I wanted to own it. Whether they are penniless or billionaires doesn't affect my enjoyment of it.
I'll never understand these strange semantic games people like to play. The distinction is really a value judgement, and nothing else. If you want to care about that kind of thing, that's fine. The only thing I really care about is what each actually does, which is produce music.
Are you really trying to argue that Metallica is an "artist", and their former napster suing behavior is in violation of their "artist nature"? If that's your argument, I give up. We might as well be arguing whether chocolate ice cream is better, or strawberry.
They want kudos for reversing their stand after they found out it is profitable?
I'll tell you what, if they donate the proceeds of their next album to the people who have been harassed by the RIAA, then we can talk. Till then, there's no basis for "forgiveness," they're just pursuing the almighty buck.
Note that "inTheLoo" and "gnutoo" are the same person [slashdot.org]. I have no idea why twitter feels the need to shill up his own posts, especially something as tepid as a joke about Metallica. Sorry for the offtopic post, but anyone posting in or moderating this thread should be aware of that.
Yeah! How dare they want to keep an unfinished song from being heard by everyone in the world?
As I recall it, every single artist that bitched about Napster did so AFTER an unfinished, "still working on it", "no, you can't hear it mom" track was thrown up on Napster.
And everyone I knew who used Napster, or its equivalents, did so because they were too cheap to bother buying music. Sorry, Napster's not even close to the moral standing the GPL has.
Only if they went back to their roots and made complex, musical songs rather than the drivel that they've come out with since the Black album (and I know that some consider the Black album the start of the drivel.)
Not only wouldn't I participate in a 'pay what you like' scenario with Metallica because of their previous position, but their music just flat out sucks now.
Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their former views?
You've got to remember that they tried to stand up and speak for all musicians. Some of the other musicians had completely opposite views though. So in my eyes what they did was worse than giving the RIAA justification for suing the hell out of people, it was also misrepresentation.
I will never buy a Metallica album. I have never owned and never will own any Metallica song or album legally or illegally. The irony is that I've been in a few cover bands (in high school mostly) and can play "Enter Sandman" and all that crap. Like many artists, I'm not a big fan of their music. Unlike many artists, I do not agree with their views in regards to music distribution.
In 2002, Slashdot ran a story on what David Bowie saw in the future of music [slashdot.org] and the music industry. Now there's somebody who I both respect and love musically. His vision was no copyright, albums are free to download, very inexpensive to buy and the artists rake in mad cash through concerts and tours. Don't get me wrong, he used a tone that said it was going to be embraced by some artists and hated by others:
"I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way. The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing."
"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen."
If Metallica wants me to listen to their music, they need to change their attitude toward music distribution. On top of that, they need to try to undo what they did. They need to apologize, speak out against the RIAA from now on, seek new channels of distribution, promote new bands other than themselves that use these channels and help out people who are being sued by the RIAA by providing legal fees so those people stand a chance. Asking a lot, I know, but Metallica did a lot to set us back in what Bowie was talking about as the inevitable end state.
Metallica will not atone for their actions and I will do everything in my power to dissuade those around me from listening to them. If I could say one thing to the band, it would be "You've always been on board the RIAA ship and now you'll ride that ship down to the bottom of the ocean with your career."
Metallica will not atone for their actions and I will do everything in my power to dissuade those around me from listening to them. If I could say one thing to the band, it would be "You've always been on board the RIAA ship and now you'll ride that ship down to the bottom of the ocean with your career."
Geez. You make it sound like they committed genocide and refuse to say sorry. Have a little perspective here. All they did was try to stop people from distributing their music for free. They spend a fortune producing it - they do have the right to at least want to get some of that money back. If they make mistakes along the way and piss people off, that doesn't make them bad people - businesses and artists piss off their customers all the time. At least give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Don't punish them out of spite, and a petty desire for an apology now that they're doing what music fans have wanted all along. Reward them for doing the right thing and they're more likely to do it again. Who cares what their motives are. You don't know their mind. If they're doing what fans want, then fuck their motives.They're at least doing it, aren't they.
They did what anyone who's successful would have done - tried to hold on to that success. If you had built up a hugely successful band or business you would also be very suspicious, or even deathly afraid of anything that might have been a threat to that and would do what you could to stop it. The anger and aggression that came from Metallica at the time, makes me think they were more afraid, than suspicious.
You may, in your infinite knowledge say that you would have given it away for free, being a true artist, but you try looking at the receipt after paying for even ONE professional guitar, never mind a whole studio, music videos and distribution system. If you still want to give it away for free then you're a better man than 99% of bands in the world (except Radiohead and bands so new or bad that they can't even give it away)
As it turned out they did the wrong thing, which is easy to see with the benefit of hindsight. Not everyone makes good business decisions. That doesn't make them bad people. What actions do they have to atone for? You're using really strong words to describe something that was an entirely human reaction and entirely legal.
And for all we know their contracts with their record company and other associates may have made it impossible for them to even consider at the time what Radiohead have considered. Who by the way had the advantage of almost 10 years to study the new distribution models. Pretty easy to make the right decision when you have that much time to think about it.
Metallica made a mistake which hurt their reputation. Good businessmen and good people will learn from their mistakes. If they haven't then you'll know by their results... which we'll find out eventually.
If you really really hate Metallica with the burning fiery passion that you imply in your post, then you're really doing the wrong thing by launching a crusade to tell everyone you know not to listen to their music. Just tell them ALL to download the free album from Metallica's site, bleed their resources and just never pay for it.
That's going to make it clear to them nobody wants to pay for their music - provided everyone you know has your long argument in mind when listening to Heavy Metal.
How about a little understanding, and forgiveness? Since you won't have to pay for anything, what's the point in getting angry over it?
If they apologize for calling their fans thieves, then yes. They got it wrong; everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes they're big ones. If they're willing to admit it, then I can forgive them; if not, then they're just out to make a quick buck.
I want the industry to get it right; I feel no need to be vindictive. But if they're just jumping on the next bandwagon, then they haven't actually changed at all.
In the documentary "some kind of monster", Lars was explaining that he wasn't against the whole file-sharing thing per se.
What the lawsuit was about, was that someone leaked their album (or a song, don't remember) out of the recording studio before it came out AND distributed it through file-sharing.
But suddenly, the story grew over their heads, and it became this big Metallica Vs. Napster thing, when it was really about Napster (or ppl through the Napster p2p network) distributing a song that they didn't release yet.
I've got a penny laying around here someplace. Given that most credit card companies charge merchants money for each credit card transaction (~$0.50 or so), Metallica would be paying for me to download their CD. That sounds about right.
"Will you buy a new Metallica album that is being offered like previous Radiohead and NIN albums?"
That begs the question of whether I even like Metallica or if I would have bought their album in other circumstances. They might try this experiment and find that it was a dismal failure; I'm sure that they would point to the experience as proof of their earlier (poor) opinions of the internet's effect on music production.
The thing about Metallica is that their music changed substantially right about the time that the internet was coming into its own as a distribution medium. Part of their low sales of albums since the black album or Load could be related to internet downloads, but I think it has much more to do with Metallica alienating their original fanbase.
When I was a kid, Metallica was practically its own genre. I though of music as metal, country, Metallica, Pantera, punk, etc. There were a few bands that stood out as archetypes. Now that metallica is 'competing' with a larger field of music, they will find that they don't have the same rabid fanbase that they once enjoyed. When you are competing for airtime with nickelback and staind, your music is no longer special. You are a commodity like reruns of old dharma and greg episodes and your listeners will treat you with about as much respect.
So will I buy the new Metallica album over the internets a la radiohead? No, but the reason has little to do with the internet and everything to do with Metallica's music. Music? Remember? 'Music' as in 'sounds', not as in 'financial investment'.
I actually have more respect for someone who is willing to say "Yep, I fucked up. Lets do it a better way."
I would just point out that they haven't said that. Instead they've done a sleight of hand -- "What? We never had a problem with downloading. Just some criminals. We got nothing wrong, so nothing to apologize for. Here, buy our album!"
Of course, they're really rewriting history when they try such stunts. Lars personally delivered a list of 300,000 "criminals" [disinfo.com] (fans) he wanted fined/booted. He was truly hostile. His label followed up with another 300,000. Some of the people here on/. may have been the ones who had to defend themselves against their crazy attacks.
I don't know if people will believe that Metallica is turning over a new leaf, but judging from the comments here, it looks like some will be happy to buy the new album. That disappoints me, as I feel Metallica may be manipulating the geek crowd to sell a few more copies. ("Hey, we're poster boys for the anti-RIAA now! Right? That's what is trendy now? OK! So buy our CD!") If they turned on their fans once, they can do it again.
I was at The Farm in SF, way back in the day when Metallica said "copy our tapes and hand them out to your friends" and we did.
Then they got a fat assed contract and said "stop copying our property and giving it away for free" We need MORE money.
Lars and James were at the forefront of both.
Now that the world has quit listening, they want to give it away again.
Thanks, I'll pass.
Actually, this stays right in line with their previous views. They were not anti-P2P. They said that if people want to have their music shared that way, they have every right to. But they also said they did not want their music traded for free, and that was their right as musicians. They went after Napster not because it was sharing music in general, but it was sharing Metallica songs that they didn't want shared. Now they have decided that they may want to put their songs out there for trading, which is their right. I'm not a Metallica fan so I wouldn't bother to download their stuff anyway, but they have completely within their rights to put this out there.
Simply put, they aren't hypocritical with this. They always said if other people want to do it, they had no issue with it. Now they are the "other people".
Their new stuff actually sounds pretty good ( search youtube for it ). The band has acknowledged that what they've put out since the black album has been pretty weak. They claim the new stuff will be a fresh take on the RTL/MOP/AJFA sound ( and it is, so far so good, hopefully it's been polished up quite a bit since those youtube videos were made ). St Anger was an interesting piece of... work. The book "This Monster Lives" describes what the band was going through when they wrote that album. It seems it mostly revolved around issues with James - his alcoholism and control issues with the band's creative direction. The conslusion appears to be that James needs to keep the drinking under control or he will destroy himself and the band can't make an album without James at the helm. The collaborative effort produced a POS ( see St. Anger ). Anyways, I think I'll buy the new album, hopefully I'll get to pay what I think it's worth.
Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They totally missed the point before, and it sounds like now they're just trying to latch on to an idea that helped others. The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus.
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
GP has it right. After
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, you can't possibly be making the "it's popular therefore it's good argument"?!?
No, he's trying to make the "it's popular, therefore people paid for it".
Whether it's "good" or not is irrelevant. This discussion is about money, not artistic value.
Parent
Will people buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm concerned that this will lead to an internet boycott.
The only thing that could have a major effect on this launch is a serious boycott based on Metallica's earlier views. Most
I hope this album is successful.
I think Metallica is played out and their music is old fashioned and mediocre.
But I hope whatever stupid way they choose to distribute it succeeds, just so that other misguided artists who feel that piracy is the end of music will STFU.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Interesting)
More people drink Budweiser than Spaten. I suppose that means it's a better beer?
I bet N'Sync has hit #1, too.
Metallica jumped the shark around the era of the self-titled black album. There's little to no reason to listen to them now (Nostalgia, I guess.)
Of course, this is just personal preference. It's certainly OK for a band to grow and change. But let's face it, the majority of 'core Metallica fans dropped out at "Nothing Else Matters" and haven't looked back.
Personally, I think most Metallica was always boring, and I liked the self-title. But if I had been a "Kill 'em All" fan, I would have been mailing them bombs or something.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
really? i see this as a completely normal thing. i liked 'twinkle twinkle little star' when i was 6 years old. not so much anymore. if i can change who i am, why wouldn't my musical tastes change too? shouldn't they reflect, in some way, who you are? the concept that you must always like songs you once liked unless you had a negative experience is, in my opinion, the wierd one.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Funny)
Now that I would pay for.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Informative)
(I'm actually not really a fan of her work, but she's in the category of people I really respect even if I don't get into their work that much. Almost wish I liked it more than I do.)
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Funny)
(unfair comparison... Vista wasn't THAT bad)
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Got something against opinions that don't match yours?
Parent
If they apologize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If they apologize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Open letters to Congress don't mean nearly as much as professional lobbying, I would much rather see a Metallica team up with other musicians (perhaps Radiohead and NIN) to form a "Fans are not Criminals" political action committee and have a PAC contribution option with every download.
Parent
Re:If they apologize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If they apologize. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Metallica will almost certainly fail in this, because they have alienated those who would go for this type of distribution model. Sorry, I'm not responsible for Lars' kitten starving, Lars is.
You reap what you have sown.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they were dickheads before, but if they're really going to shift to this business model that's a fucking big name endorsing it.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is no unity or cohesiveness to the songs. Some of them are downright funny, as if 'Saturday Night Live' was doing a skit making fun of them. This album represents what they are now: a sloppy mess. And the heart of the matter is that this is not a good METALLICA album. I speak only as a fan. Sure, it's noisy and angry but something is seriously missing. It seems to represents a decline in the standards of this modern day and age, when we are bombarded with so much information we forget what true quality is."
Ouch.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Interesting)
People pay becase NIN and Radiohead were the pioneers of this.
If everyone goes this way then people will take it for granted and they won't pay for it.
Some of them will, of course, but much fewer people than in the introductory phase of this business model.
Pepople pay now, because it makes them look cool, but will they do it in the long run?
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do I want to ruin the big record companies? In my view, it is one of the only ways to bring sanity back to the copyright picture. As long as these guys are around to pump money into congress, we little folks don't stand a chance. I fear we might have to do the same to Hollywood if they don't wise up.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hollywood is indeed a tougher nut to crack - part of my fear about having to crack them. Still, if TV almost killed them in the 50s, then the internet could certainly do it 50 years later - especially as connection speeds increase. Napster took off when people were downloading songs over a 56k modem and it took about 5 minutes. To get a decent quality movie in the same time, it would take a connection speed of about 25 Mbps.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Metallica was acting as the RIAA's puppet, brainwashed into thinking this is how they should 'protect their own profits.' But now that they have seen that perhaps the RIAA has been protecting its own profits and the expense of the groups' earning potential, it is one less nail in the coffin of musical art.
Let's not forget that Metallica supported "the dark side" but instead use it as evidence of the real dark side's failing business model. If Metallica can turn, they can all turn. Before long, there may be several bands with names like "The artists formerly known as..."
If Metallica fails in trying to get free, it will serve as a sign that other artists and bands should not stray from the comfortable dark place they exist in now.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still think that if the RIAA hadn't gone after napster, with the help of bands like metallica p2p would have never made it into the mainstream and become what we know it as today. They CREATED the problem the industry is having today due to their shortsighted holier then thou attitudes. They shouldn't be allowed to participate in it now.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Interesting)
They were one of the first bands to bellyache about pirated music. Lars cried a river over the issue.
They fell from grace, and kept right on falling.
They can rot in hell for all I care. I'll never buy, download, or listen to another Metallica album again.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:5, Insightful)
is this some way you are dreaming up to 'punish' people whose talent happens to be making music rather than configuring routers? I don't see why people split society in two halves., the 'creative' types who are forced to work for free (or low wages) to entertain the rest of society, who apparently can happily enjoy all the fruits of capitalism and be rich as hell.
Take a look at the UKs sunday times rich list (1,000 richest people in the UK). hardly any of them are musicians, yet the internet mentality is to treat the musicians who make money as evil capitalist scum, but the guy who is a multi billionaire from making milk cartons gets buy with just a slap on the back and a thumbs up.
I'd buy metallicas album if I wanted to own it. Whether they are penniless or billionaires doesn't affect my enjoyment of it.
Parent
Re:Would you buy a Metallica online album...? (Score:4, Insightful)
One is an artist, the other is a rock star.
I'll never understand these strange semantic games people like to play. The distinction is really a value judgement, and nothing else. If you want to care about that kind of thing, that's fine. The only thing I really care about is what each actually does, which is produce music.
Are you really trying to argue that Metallica is an "artist", and their former napster suing behavior is in violation of their "artist nature"? If that's your argument, I give up. We might as well be arguing whether chocolate ice cream is better, or strawberry.
Parent
Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you what, if they donate the proceeds of their next album to the people who have been harassed by the RIAA, then we can talk. Till then, there's no basis for "forgiveness," they're just pursuing the almighty buck.
Parent
Re:That's funny. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Buying a Metallica album?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Buying a Metallica album?! (Score:5, Interesting)
As I recall it, every single artist that bitched about Napster did so AFTER an unfinished, "still working on it", "no, you can't hear it mom" track was thrown up on Napster.
And everyone I knew who used Napster, or its equivalents, did so because they were too cheap to bother buying music. Sorry, Napster's not even close to the moral standing the GPL has.
Parent
Hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
I probably would download it off the net though, with the help of my
Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because it's never too late to do the right thing.
If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it?
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Here's an idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Music Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Metallica (Score:5, Interesting)
David Bowie Knows What's Up (Score:5, Interesting)
I will never buy a Metallica album. I have never owned and never will own any Metallica song or album legally or illegally. The irony is that I've been in a few cover bands (in high school mostly) and can play "Enter Sandman" and all that crap. Like many artists, I'm not a big fan of their music. Unlike many artists, I do not agree with their views in regards to music distribution.
In 2002, Slashdot ran a story on what David Bowie saw in the future of music [slashdot.org] and the music industry. Now there's somebody who I both respect and love musically. His vision was no copyright, albums are free to download, very inexpensive to buy and the artists rake in mad cash through concerts and tours. Don't get me wrong, he used a tone that said it was going to be embraced by some artists and hated by others:
"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen."
Metallica will not atone for their actions and I will do everything in my power to dissuade those around me from listening to them. If I could say one thing to the band, it would be "You've always been on board the RIAA ship and now you'll ride that ship down to the bottom of the ocean with your career."
Re:David Bowie Knows What's Up (Score:5, Insightful)
They did what anyone who's successful would have done - tried to hold on to that success. If you had built up a hugely successful band or business you would also be very suspicious, or even deathly afraid of anything that might have been a threat to that and would do what you could to stop it. The anger and aggression that came from Metallica at the time, makes me think they were more afraid, than suspicious.
You may, in your infinite knowledge say that you would have given it away for free, being a true artist, but you try looking at the receipt after paying for even ONE professional guitar, never mind a whole studio, music videos and distribution system. If you still want to give it away for free then you're a better man than 99% of bands in the world (except Radiohead and bands so new or bad that they can't even give it away)
As it turned out they did the wrong thing, which is easy to see with the benefit of hindsight. Not everyone makes good business decisions. That doesn't make them bad people. What actions do they have to atone for? You're using really strong words to describe something that was an entirely human reaction and entirely legal.
And for all we know their contracts with their record company and other associates may have made it impossible for them to even consider at the time what Radiohead have considered. Who by the way had the advantage of almost 10 years to study the new distribution models. Pretty easy to make the right decision when you have that much time to think about it.
Metallica made a mistake which hurt their reputation. Good businessmen and good people will learn from their mistakes. If they haven't then you'll know by their results... which we'll find out eventually.
If you really really hate Metallica with the burning fiery passion that you imply in your post, then you're really doing the wrong thing by launching a crusade to tell everyone you know not to listen to their music. Just tell them ALL to download the free album from Metallica's site, bleed their resources and just never pay for it.
That's going to make it clear to them nobody wants to pay for their music - provided everyone you know has your long argument in mind when listening to Heavy Metal.
How about a little understanding, and forgiveness? Since you won't have to pay for anything, what's the point in getting angry over it?
Parent
If they apologize. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they apologize for calling their fans thieves, then yes. They got it wrong; everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes they're big ones. If they're willing to admit it, then I can forgive them; if not, then they're just out to make a quick buck.
I want the industry to get it right; I feel no need to be vindictive. But if they're just jumping on the next bandwagon, then they haven't actually changed at all.
they weren't against it per se (Score:4, Informative)
Sure! (Score:4, Funny)
I've got a penny laying around here someplace. Given that most credit card companies charge merchants money for each credit card transaction (~$0.50 or so), Metallica would be paying for me to download their CD. That sounds about right.
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
It begs the question... (Score:4, Informative)
That begs the question of whether I even like Metallica or if I would have bought their album in other circumstances. They might try this experiment and find that it was a dismal failure; I'm sure that they would point to the experience as proof of their earlier (poor) opinions of the internet's effect on music production.
The thing about Metallica is that their music changed substantially right about the time that the internet was coming into its own as a distribution medium. Part of their low sales of albums since the black album or Load could be related to internet downloads, but I think it has much more to do with Metallica alienating their original fanbase.
When I was a kid, Metallica was practically its own genre. I though of music as metal, country, Metallica, Pantera, punk, etc. There were a few bands that stood out as archetypes. Now that metallica is 'competing' with a larger field of music, they will find that they don't have the same rabid fanbase that they once enjoyed. When you are competing for airtime with nickelback and staind, your music is no longer special. You are a commodity like reruns of old dharma and greg episodes and your listeners will treat you with about as much respect.
So will I buy the new Metallica album over the internets a la radiohead? No, but the reason has little to do with the internet and everything to do with Metallica's music. Music? Remember? 'Music' as in 'sounds', not as in 'financial investment'.
-b
It depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Would I ?!? (Score:5, Funny)
They are "unforgiven" :-))
Sure except.... (Score:5, Informative)
However I wouldn't buy their album because their music sucks.
Re:Sure except.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would just point out that they haven't said that. Instead they've done a sleight of hand -- "What? We never had a problem with downloading. Just some criminals. We got nothing wrong, so nothing to apologize for. Here, buy our album!"
Of course, they're really rewriting history when they try such stunts. Lars personally delivered a list of 300,000 "criminals" [disinfo.com] (fans) he wanted fined/booted. He was truly hostile. His label followed up with another 300,000. Some of the people here on /. may have been the ones who had to defend themselves against their crazy attacks.
I don't know if people will believe that Metallica is turning over a new leaf, but judging from the comments here, it looks like some will be happy to buy the new album. That disappoints me, as I feel Metallica may be manipulating the geek crowd to sell a few more copies. ("Hey, we're poster boys for the anti-RIAA now! Right? That's what is trendy now? OK! So buy our CD!") If they turned on their fans once, they can do it again.
Parent
I was at The Farm in SF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably Not. (Score:4, Interesting)
Simply put, they aren't hypocritical with this. They always said if other people want to do it, they had no issue with it. Now they are the "other people".
Parent
Re:I think a better question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent